![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the Wikipedia "Hawaiian language" article has become longer than desired for an average Wikipedia article, I'm starting up this "Hawaiian phonology" article. The "Phonology" section of the "Hawaiian language" article is currently big enough to be its own article. So to reduce the size of the "Hawaiian language" article, it's appropriate to export its "Phonology" section to become this "Hawaiian phonology" article. Of course, we don't want (1) the same information to be needlessly duplicated in two different articles, nor (2) a complete lack of information on Hawaiian phonology in the "Hawaiian language" article. Therefore, some time will be needed to make appropriate adjustments to the "Phonology" section of the "Hawaiian language" article. Until/While that is done, please have patience with the temporary duplication of material.
Agent X 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Great article. I took the liberty of replacing ˡ (U+02E1 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L) in the article with ˈ (U+02C8 MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE) where it is used to indicate a stressed syllable. The former character is incorrect since although it appears as a vertical line in sans-serif fonts, it actually appears like a superscript lowercase l or a superscript 1 in serif fonts like Charis SIL and Doulos SIL. I only noticed this because I have a CSS hack that applies to all uses of the IPA template and forces a different font for them. I’m taking phonology at U. Hawaiʻi at Mānoa so I’ll be sure to add anything interesting about Hawaiian that comes up. — Jéioosh 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have done some phonological analysis of the stress system of Hawaiian (in the context of a paper on Hawaii Creole English stress patterns); however, I am unsure how appropriate it would be but it would assuredly be better than saying the stress system is unpredictable in phrases or words with more than three morae, since it's a quantity-sensitive system. I would be more than happy to share the paper. Naea | Hale o Keawe 10:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naea-a-liloa ( talk • contribs)
To AEuSoes1 --- Your user page indicates that you are a native speaker of English, and a 24-year-old in California who has a BA in English from Fresno State. It is very presumptuous for any person to deem himself qualified to rewrite an article on the phonology of a language which he does not speak. I am a fluent speaker of Hawaiian, and a long-time resident of Hawaii with a PhD in Linguistics. I reverted your edits because I am in a position to know that they were not good, in spite of your high opinion of your own edits. Yours were very major edits, not minor ones. Fixing the damage you did was best accomplished by simply undoing it in one step. Your threat, "Do not revert my edits", is contrary to Wikipedia policies. It is not your place to proclaim that I cannot disagree with your edits. I encouraged you to discuss your ideas for improvement, in advance, in the talk section created for that purpose. When you are specifically so encouraged, you should pay attention. I am the originator of, and major contributor to, the Hawaiian Phonology article. That is a fact which you need to heed, because when certain disputes occur, Wikipedia defers to an article's originator or major contributor. The "IPA notice" you added did not damage the article, but the rest of your edits did.
Agent X 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, here are the edits that I've just done. I'll be explicit in what I’ve done since the edits can be overwhelming.
These are changes that don't require me to know the language or even to look at any of your sources. I've taken the information you put in and removed a lot of the redundancy. Now just check here to see the paragraphs that I would like taken out. Check the other phonology pages and you won't find any lengthy sections on "terminology and conventions" AEuSoes1 07:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
To Aeusoes1 --- Rewriting content, with no knowledge of the particular topic, and without looking at any sources, as you admit to doing, is the ANTITHESIS of what Wikipedia contributors should be doing. The majority of the article's content is careful paraphrasing of information from the sources. That is supplemented by quotations. Paraphrases are essentially careful re-wordings of quotes. When you, with no knowledge of the source texts, significantly change the paraphrases, you might as well be changing the direct quotes.
As for WP:BOLD, it states:
You wrote: "I really don't see how your knowledge of Hawaiian is relevant to my edits". Because I have near-native fluency in Hawaiian, as well as a PhD in Linguistics, I know that your uninformed attempts to rewrite the description of word stress, throwing out "D" as a symbol for diphthong, are doomed to failure. For example, you made it have "3. (C)VV" as a stress unit. If V expands as a diphthong, then "wiuiu" can result --- an impossible stress unit in Hawaiian. That's only ONE of MANY errors your edits cause.
More importantly, your rewrite is not supported by any sources. You failed to cite any references, and admitted that you don't care to look at any.
You wrote: "My edits were all about format and not substance". That is false. See the preceding two paragraphs. Your rewrite of the word-stress content is substance, not format.
You wrote the phrase "blindly revert" to describe my restoration of the original version. My revert of your edits is informed, not "blind". I've seen an edit summary you wrote in the history of another phonology page where you made the same accusation against another user who undid your edits.
You point to the "layout" of other phonology pages, calling it "precedent". However, the Russian (RUS), Arabic (ARA), Romanian (ROM), Polish (POL), and Danish (DAN) phonology articles are not in compliance with Wikipedia guides. POL and DAN have no lead section. The leads of RUS, ARA, and ROM, violate WP:LEAD. None of those articles use boldface properly. ROM and POL have no references at all. RUS has only 2 old refs, ARA only 1 old ref. DAN has 8. None of those articles have even ONE CITATION to a reference. The "layout" of those pages is not consistent.
In contrast, the Hawaiian phonology article (HAW), as originated by me, has a proper lead section, proper use of boldface, 8 references, and 70 citations to those references. HAW is one of the best-supported linguistics articles currently on Wikipedia.
I will undo your edits by restoring my last version of the article. Because you have persisted in "forcing" your unsupported and objected-to edits into the article, I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to take a look at the situation. I will SUPPORT good changes, such as Jeioosh's idea about the stress-mark character. But I will OPPOSE bad changes, such as your uninformed edits. Agent X 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Allophone of /oːu/. Always [oou]. Emphasis on [oo].
Allophone of /eːi/. Always [eei]. Emphasis on [ee].
Allophone of /aːu/. Always [aau]. Emphasis on [aa].
Allophone of /aːi/. Always [aai]. Emphasis on [aa].
Allophone of /aːo/. Always [aao]. Emphasis on [aa].
Allophone of /aːe/. Always [aae]. Emphasis on [aa].
Note 1. There is ordinarily no variation in the sounds of the long diphthongs.
I have shortened this to
All long diphthongs are falling. There is typically no allophonic variation for long diphthongs.
I think a phonemical, not phonetical phoneme table with suitable underspecification would benefit this article. Eg. explicitely leaving an empty alveolar stop slot, as done currently, doesn't really capture the phonological structure. I suggest something along these lines:
Consonants | Glottal | Labial | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plosives | ʔ | p | k | |
Continuants | Nasal | m | n | |
Other | h | w | l |
Any objections? I'm a bit torn if there are any OR concerns here (tho I suppose a sorce for this kind of an analysis might be possible to locate, anyway). The POA fluctuation is accounted alreddy by the prose, the part I'm more iffy about is the continuant categorization. Having /h/ as fricativ, /l/ under approximant, and /w/ under both might be less controversial (possibly allowing for extending /k/ to fric, too). At the least I oppose classifying /l/ as "lateral" if it can be realized as non-lateral.
Also, neither of these captures the flap allophone of /l/, but the current table has that problem too. -- Tropylium ( talk) 14:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How can I get /aː/ in Monophthongs to be center-aligned? -- 99.190.210.221 ( talk) 18:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The article quotes Pukui and Ebert: "Elbert & Pukui[36] have pointed out that "Certain combinations of sounds are absent or rare." For example, no content word has the form CVVʔV". In reading the [ [2]] I don't see that reference. Besides, it seems wrong to me - what about the common words puaʻa and loaʻa? Fool4jesus ( talk) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I've inserted a citation of Parker Jones (2006), who shows how it is possible to predict stress more accurately in words of 5 syllables, but I'm not sufficiently proficient at Wikipedia editing to include the actual reference, which is to this conference paper: http://www.alta.asn.au/events/altw2006/proceedings/parker_jones.pdf So if any editors of this page can help, that would be super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.134.150 ( talk) 12:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nardog: After reading Donegan's paper, I wonder about two things:
Since Donegan (1995) is a rather peripheral source, I'd prefer not to make use of it, and mention nasalization solely based on Parker Jones (2018). – Austronesier ( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
In Hawaiʻian, denasalization applies and nasalization is inhibited, so all vowels are oral in all contexts) cited to Donegan & Stampe (2009), but I found the description in Donegan (1995) more succinct so I cited it. If I understand correctly, Donegan & Stampe do seem to be saying vowels are always oral in Hawaiian (even after nasals), but as you pointed out it's a phonology, not phonetics, paper and they don't cite the data source or method, and Parker Jones (2018) provides counterevidence. I agree the claim is dubious, but I'd be reluctant to rephrase it to be in line with Parker Jones given Donegan & Stampe and Parker Jones seem to be at odds at each other; I wonder if it's due to a dialectal or diachronic variation. Nardog ( talk) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know what Elbert & Pukui 1986 and Roberts 1967 are supposed to be? Erinius ( talk) 01:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ 40bus: Here you have added [ç, ʝ, q, ɢ, χ, ʁ, ʡ, ħ, ʕ] to the list of "acceptable" realizations of /k/, but, with the possible exception of [q], they are hard to believe. If this is based on nothing better than a literal interpretation of "any obstruent that is neither labial nor glottal", I don't think it should be here. -- Theurgist ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the Wikipedia "Hawaiian language" article has become longer than desired for an average Wikipedia article, I'm starting up this "Hawaiian phonology" article. The "Phonology" section of the "Hawaiian language" article is currently big enough to be its own article. So to reduce the size of the "Hawaiian language" article, it's appropriate to export its "Phonology" section to become this "Hawaiian phonology" article. Of course, we don't want (1) the same information to be needlessly duplicated in two different articles, nor (2) a complete lack of information on Hawaiian phonology in the "Hawaiian language" article. Therefore, some time will be needed to make appropriate adjustments to the "Phonology" section of the "Hawaiian language" article. Until/While that is done, please have patience with the temporary duplication of material.
Agent X 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Great article. I took the liberty of replacing ˡ (U+02E1 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L) in the article with ˈ (U+02C8 MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE) where it is used to indicate a stressed syllable. The former character is incorrect since although it appears as a vertical line in sans-serif fonts, it actually appears like a superscript lowercase l or a superscript 1 in serif fonts like Charis SIL and Doulos SIL. I only noticed this because I have a CSS hack that applies to all uses of the IPA template and forces a different font for them. I’m taking phonology at U. Hawaiʻi at Mānoa so I’ll be sure to add anything interesting about Hawaiian that comes up. — Jéioosh 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have done some phonological analysis of the stress system of Hawaiian (in the context of a paper on Hawaii Creole English stress patterns); however, I am unsure how appropriate it would be but it would assuredly be better than saying the stress system is unpredictable in phrases or words with more than three morae, since it's a quantity-sensitive system. I would be more than happy to share the paper. Naea | Hale o Keawe 10:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naea-a-liloa ( talk • contribs)
To AEuSoes1 --- Your user page indicates that you are a native speaker of English, and a 24-year-old in California who has a BA in English from Fresno State. It is very presumptuous for any person to deem himself qualified to rewrite an article on the phonology of a language which he does not speak. I am a fluent speaker of Hawaiian, and a long-time resident of Hawaii with a PhD in Linguistics. I reverted your edits because I am in a position to know that they were not good, in spite of your high opinion of your own edits. Yours were very major edits, not minor ones. Fixing the damage you did was best accomplished by simply undoing it in one step. Your threat, "Do not revert my edits", is contrary to Wikipedia policies. It is not your place to proclaim that I cannot disagree with your edits. I encouraged you to discuss your ideas for improvement, in advance, in the talk section created for that purpose. When you are specifically so encouraged, you should pay attention. I am the originator of, and major contributor to, the Hawaiian Phonology article. That is a fact which you need to heed, because when certain disputes occur, Wikipedia defers to an article's originator or major contributor. The "IPA notice" you added did not damage the article, but the rest of your edits did.
Agent X 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, here are the edits that I've just done. I'll be explicit in what I’ve done since the edits can be overwhelming.
These are changes that don't require me to know the language or even to look at any of your sources. I've taken the information you put in and removed a lot of the redundancy. Now just check here to see the paragraphs that I would like taken out. Check the other phonology pages and you won't find any lengthy sections on "terminology and conventions" AEuSoes1 07:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
To Aeusoes1 --- Rewriting content, with no knowledge of the particular topic, and without looking at any sources, as you admit to doing, is the ANTITHESIS of what Wikipedia contributors should be doing. The majority of the article's content is careful paraphrasing of information from the sources. That is supplemented by quotations. Paraphrases are essentially careful re-wordings of quotes. When you, with no knowledge of the source texts, significantly change the paraphrases, you might as well be changing the direct quotes.
As for WP:BOLD, it states:
You wrote: "I really don't see how your knowledge of Hawaiian is relevant to my edits". Because I have near-native fluency in Hawaiian, as well as a PhD in Linguistics, I know that your uninformed attempts to rewrite the description of word stress, throwing out "D" as a symbol for diphthong, are doomed to failure. For example, you made it have "3. (C)VV" as a stress unit. If V expands as a diphthong, then "wiuiu" can result --- an impossible stress unit in Hawaiian. That's only ONE of MANY errors your edits cause.
More importantly, your rewrite is not supported by any sources. You failed to cite any references, and admitted that you don't care to look at any.
You wrote: "My edits were all about format and not substance". That is false. See the preceding two paragraphs. Your rewrite of the word-stress content is substance, not format.
You wrote the phrase "blindly revert" to describe my restoration of the original version. My revert of your edits is informed, not "blind". I've seen an edit summary you wrote in the history of another phonology page where you made the same accusation against another user who undid your edits.
You point to the "layout" of other phonology pages, calling it "precedent". However, the Russian (RUS), Arabic (ARA), Romanian (ROM), Polish (POL), and Danish (DAN) phonology articles are not in compliance with Wikipedia guides. POL and DAN have no lead section. The leads of RUS, ARA, and ROM, violate WP:LEAD. None of those articles use boldface properly. ROM and POL have no references at all. RUS has only 2 old refs, ARA only 1 old ref. DAN has 8. None of those articles have even ONE CITATION to a reference. The "layout" of those pages is not consistent.
In contrast, the Hawaiian phonology article (HAW), as originated by me, has a proper lead section, proper use of boldface, 8 references, and 70 citations to those references. HAW is one of the best-supported linguistics articles currently on Wikipedia.
I will undo your edits by restoring my last version of the article. Because you have persisted in "forcing" your unsupported and objected-to edits into the article, I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to take a look at the situation. I will SUPPORT good changes, such as Jeioosh's idea about the stress-mark character. But I will OPPOSE bad changes, such as your uninformed edits. Agent X 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Allophone of /oːu/. Always [oou]. Emphasis on [oo].
Allophone of /eːi/. Always [eei]. Emphasis on [ee].
Allophone of /aːu/. Always [aau]. Emphasis on [aa].
Allophone of /aːi/. Always [aai]. Emphasis on [aa].
Allophone of /aːo/. Always [aao]. Emphasis on [aa].
Allophone of /aːe/. Always [aae]. Emphasis on [aa].
Note 1. There is ordinarily no variation in the sounds of the long diphthongs.
I have shortened this to
All long diphthongs are falling. There is typically no allophonic variation for long diphthongs.
I think a phonemical, not phonetical phoneme table with suitable underspecification would benefit this article. Eg. explicitely leaving an empty alveolar stop slot, as done currently, doesn't really capture the phonological structure. I suggest something along these lines:
Consonants | Glottal | Labial | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plosives | ʔ | p | k | |
Continuants | Nasal | m | n | |
Other | h | w | l |
Any objections? I'm a bit torn if there are any OR concerns here (tho I suppose a sorce for this kind of an analysis might be possible to locate, anyway). The POA fluctuation is accounted alreddy by the prose, the part I'm more iffy about is the continuant categorization. Having /h/ as fricativ, /l/ under approximant, and /w/ under both might be less controversial (possibly allowing for extending /k/ to fric, too). At the least I oppose classifying /l/ as "lateral" if it can be realized as non-lateral.
Also, neither of these captures the flap allophone of /l/, but the current table has that problem too. -- Tropylium ( talk) 14:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How can I get /aː/ in Monophthongs to be center-aligned? -- 99.190.210.221 ( talk) 18:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The article quotes Pukui and Ebert: "Elbert & Pukui[36] have pointed out that "Certain combinations of sounds are absent or rare." For example, no content word has the form CVVʔV". In reading the [ [2]] I don't see that reference. Besides, it seems wrong to me - what about the common words puaʻa and loaʻa? Fool4jesus ( talk) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I've inserted a citation of Parker Jones (2006), who shows how it is possible to predict stress more accurately in words of 5 syllables, but I'm not sufficiently proficient at Wikipedia editing to include the actual reference, which is to this conference paper: http://www.alta.asn.au/events/altw2006/proceedings/parker_jones.pdf So if any editors of this page can help, that would be super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.134.150 ( talk) 12:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nardog: After reading Donegan's paper, I wonder about two things:
Since Donegan (1995) is a rather peripheral source, I'd prefer not to make use of it, and mention nasalization solely based on Parker Jones (2018). – Austronesier ( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
In Hawaiʻian, denasalization applies and nasalization is inhibited, so all vowels are oral in all contexts) cited to Donegan & Stampe (2009), but I found the description in Donegan (1995) more succinct so I cited it. If I understand correctly, Donegan & Stampe do seem to be saying vowels are always oral in Hawaiian (even after nasals), but as you pointed out it's a phonology, not phonetics, paper and they don't cite the data source or method, and Parker Jones (2018) provides counterevidence. I agree the claim is dubious, but I'd be reluctant to rephrase it to be in line with Parker Jones given Donegan & Stampe and Parker Jones seem to be at odds at each other; I wonder if it's due to a dialectal or diachronic variation. Nardog ( talk) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know what Elbert & Pukui 1986 and Roberts 1967 are supposed to be? Erinius ( talk) 01:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ 40bus: Here you have added [ç, ʝ, q, ɢ, χ, ʁ, ʡ, ħ, ʕ] to the list of "acceptable" realizations of /k/, but, with the possible exception of [q], they are hard to believe. If this is based on nothing better than a literal interpretation of "any obstruent that is neither labial nor glottal", I don't think it should be here. -- Theurgist ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)